Messrs. Global Exim vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Messrs. Global Exim, sought to import EV Batteries, described as 'Automotive Batteries', under Duty Free Import Authorizations (DFIA) issued against the export of Agricultural Tractors. The petitioner apprehended that the authorities might not permit this import without insisting on the actual user condition being met in the export product, and sought to extend the benefit of Customs Notifications No. 98 of 2019 and No. 19 of 2015-Cus to these EV Batteries. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, seeking a mandamus to permit the clearance of these batteries and extend the benefit of the said notifications. The respondents were the Union of India and the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad.

Held

The High Court found the writ petition to be premature as no import had yet taken place, and consequently, no decision had been taken by the customs authorities. However, acknowledging the grievance expressed by the petitioner and the potential severe consequences if the import was not accepted as permissible, the Court permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad. The Commissioner was directed to consider this representation and pass an appropriate order thereon within one month from its receipt, in accordance with the law. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the interpretation of the DFIA or the applicability of the customs notifications.

Key Issues

1. Whether EV Batteries, described as 'Automotive Batteries', can be cleared under DFIA's issued against the export of Agricultural Tractors without insisting on the actual user condition being met in the export product? 2. Whether the benefit of Customs Notification No. 98 of 2019 and Notification No. 19 of 2015-Cus can be extended to the EV Batteries proposed to be imported by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that EV Batteries are used in the automotive industry and should be permissible imports under the existing DFIA framework for automotive batteries. The petitioner's apprehension was that the authorities might not consider these batteries as permissible imports for electrical vehicles, even if they fall under the broader category of automotive batteries. The respondents' arguments were not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but the court noted the petitioner's apprehension regarding the interpretation of the import policy by the authorities.